Love Canal 1

L O V E

C A N A L

Center for Health, Environment and Justice P.O. Box 6806, Falls Church, Virginia 22040 Voice: 703-237-2249 - Email: [email protected] - Website: www.chej.org Fact Pack P001 Cover photo: Lois Gibbs and daughter Melissa 1979 For more information or to order copies of this publication contact:

Center for Health, Environment and Justice P.O. Box 6806, Falls Church, Virginia 22040 Voice: 703-237-2249 - Email: [email protected] - Website: www.chej.org TABLE OF CONTENTS

A History of Love Canal 1

Love Canal Homeowners Association 2

A Summary of Events 4 Remedial Construction Outside the Fence

Community Health Studies 6 Miscarriages and Crib Deaths Birth Defects Nervous Breakdowns Urinary Tract Disorders Combined Health Disorders

Key Dates of Events at Love Canal 13

Biography of Lois Gibbs 17

Formation of Center For Health, Environment and Justice 19

News Clips and Articles on Love Canal 20

Love Canal

A HISTORY OF LOVE CANAL

The history of Love Canal began in 1892 Homebuilding around the old canal also when William T. Love proposed connecting began in the 1950’s. However, homeowners the upper and lower Niagara River by were never given any warning or informa- digging a canal six to seven miles long. By tion that would indicate that the property was doing this, Love hoped to harness the water located near a chemical waste dump. Most of the upper Niagara River into a navigable families who moved into the area were channel, which would create a man-made unaware of the old landfill and its poisons. waterfall with a 280-foot drop into the lower The one-time canal looked very innocent, Niagara River, providing cheap power. like any field anywhere. It certainly did not appear to be a chemical dump with 20,000 However, the country fell into an economic tons of toxic wastes buried beneath it. depression and financial backing for the project slipped away. Love then abandoned In 1978, there were approximately 800 the project, leaving behind a partially dug private single-family homes and 240 low- section of the canal, sixty feet wide and three income apartments built around the canal. thousand feet long. In 1920, the land was The elementary school was located near the sold at public auction and became a center of the landfill. The Niagara River, to municipal and chemical disposal site until the south and a creek to the north of the 1953. The principal company that dumped landfill formed natural boundaries for the waste in the canal was Hooker Chemical area affected by the migrating chemicals. Corporation, a subsidiary of Occidental Petroleum. The City of Niagara and the From the late 1950’s through the 1970’s, United States Army used the site as well, people repeatedly complained of odors and with the city dumping garbage and the Army substances surfacing near or in their yards possibly dumping parts of the Manhattan and on the school playground. The city, Project and other chemical warfare material. responding to these complaints, visited the area and covered the “substances” with dirt In 1953, after filling the canal and covering it or clay. with dirt, Hooker sold the land to the Board of Education for one dollar. Hooker included After years of complaints, the city and in the deed transfer a “warning” of the county hired a consultant to investigate. In chemical wastes buried on the property and a 1976, the Calspan Corporation completed a disclaimer absolving Hooker of any future study of the canal area and found toxic liability. chemical residues in the air and sump pumps of a high percentage of homes at the southern Perhaps because they didn’t understand the end of the canal. They also found drums just potential risks associated with Hooker’s beneath or on the surface, and high levels of chemical wastes, the Board of Education PCB’s in the storm sewer system. Calspan began in 1954 to construct an elementary recommended that the canal be covered with school on the canal property. The 99th Street clay, home sump pumps be sealed off and a School was completed by 1955, opening its tile drainage system be installed to control doors to about 400 students each year. the migration of wastes.

1 Center for Health, Environment and Justice

However, nothing was done by the city with attending the school, Gibbs became very the exception of placing window fans in a few concerned about the danger the landfill posed homes found to contain high levels of to the school. She also realized that the school chemical residues. being built so close to the landfill might have something to do with her son’s poor health. In March of 1978, the New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH) began Gibbs first approached the School Board collecting air and soil tests in basements and armed with notes from two physicians conducting a health study of the 239 families recommending the transfer of her child to that immediately encircled the canal. The another public school. But the Board refused Health Department found an increase in to transfer her child stating that if it was unsafe reproductive problems among women and for her son, then it would be unsafe for all high levels of chemical contaminants in soil children and they were not going to close the and air. school because of one concerned mother with a sickly child. Gibbs was angered and began talking with other parents in the neighborhood Love Canal Homeowners to see if they were having problems with their Association children’s health. After speaking with hundreds of people, she realized that the entire Love Canal Homeowners Association community was affected. (LCHA) was established in August of 1978 to give the community a voice in the decisions On August 2, 1978, the New York State made during the Love Canal environmental Department of Health (NYSDOH) issued a crisis. LCHA membership consisted of health order. The health order recommended approximately 500 families living within a that the 99th Street School be closed (a 10-block area surrounding the Love Canal victory), that pregnant women and children landfill. The community consisted of blue- under the age of two be evacuated, that collar workers with an average annual income residents not eat out of their home gardens and of $10,000-$25,000. The majority of people that they spend limited time in their worked in local industries which were largely basements. A few days later, the state agreed chemical. to purchase all 239 homes in the first two rings of homes closest to the canal. The Love Canal Homeowners Association grew out of another group established in June These unprecedented actions served to bring 1978, the Love Canal Parents Movement. The the residents together to form a strong united Parents Movement was started by Lois Gibbs, citizens organization, and served as the who lived in the neighborhood and whose stepping stone to the establishment of the children attended the 99th Street School. Ms. Love Canal Homeowners Association. Within Gibbs, unaware of the dump, was alerted first a week of the health order, the residents held a by newspaper articles describing the landfill, public meeting, elected officers and set goals its wastes, and proximity to the 99th for the newly formed organization. All goals StreetSchool. Having a small sickly child set at that time were ultimately reached.

2 Love Canal

The Love Canal and the Surrounding Neighborhood

3 Center for Health, Environment and Justice

A Summary of Events that crossed the canal and underground sand layers that carried this overflow into the basements of adjacent homes and through- At the time of the first evacuation order in out the community. August of 1978, the state established the Love Canal Interagency Task Force to The cleanup plan consisted of a tile drain coordinate the many activities undertaken at collection system designed to “contain” the the canal. The task force had three major waste and prevent any outward migration of responsibilities: the relocation of evacuated chemical leachate. A graded trench system families, the continuation of health and was dug around the canal to intercept environmental studies and the construction migrating leachate and create a barrier drain of a drainage system to prevent further system. The containment system is shown migration of toxic chemicals. below.

Remedial Construction The leachate collected from the drain system is pumped to an on-site treatment plant that A cross-sectional diagram of the Love Canal uses a series of filters, most importantly, landfill is shown below. Because of the close activated charcoal, to remove chemicals proximity to the Niagara River, the water from the waste stream. The remaining table in the canal would rise and fall “clean” water is then flushed down the substantially. As this occurred, water would sanitary sewer system. Chemicals such as mix with chemicals in the landfill and move mercury and other heavy metals are not out into the community as “leachate.” As the removed by this treatment system. water table rose, so did the leachate which moved out through the topsoil to homes built A clay cap was placed over the canal as a nearby. There was also an old stream bed cover to minimize rainwater entering the

4 Love Canal

canal surface, to prevent chemicals from Outside the Fence vaporizing into the air and to prevent direct contact with contaminated soil. The 20,000 Once the state had evacuated 239 families tons of wastes are still buried in the center of and began the cleanup, they arbitrarily this community. defined the affected area and erected a 10- foot fence around the evacuated area. This Although this system cost the state millions decision was arbitrary because at the time of dollars, a monitoring system to determine nobody knew how far the chemicals had its effectiveness was not established until 5 gone or how many people were affected. At years had passed. this same time, the state began to make public statements that there was no evidence Thus, there was no baseline data on contami- of abnormal health problems outside the nant levels in the groundwater. Once the state fenced area. Consequently, the families in began to monitor the wells, they did find the outer community became angry and chemicals leaking into the river. This was began to look at the fence as though it fenced not surprising since there was no bottom to them in. The residents knew there were the “containment” sytem. Other data indi- health problems outside the first 239 homes cated that some contaminants were increas- because of a health survey that LCHA had ing in the monitoring wells outside the ca- conducted. nal. The state ignored these data and pointed to other data that indicated that the system The community quickly began to express was working. their anger and concerns. Even quiet and retiring residents suddenly found them- selves raising their voices in public protest. The protests included mothers and fathers with their babies and seniors who were ready for retirement. They marched into the streets on Mother’s Day, carried symbolic coffins to the state capitol, and held prayer vigils.

The residents also picketed at the canal every day for weeks in the dead of winter, hoping someone would hear them and someone would help. Their children were sick, their homes were worthless and they were innocent victims.

Because of the pressure created by the protests and the persistence of the community, the state was forced to address the community’s concerns. They gave the residents “concessions” such as an extensive safety plan, a scientist-consultant of their

5 Center for Health, Environment and Justice

choosing whose salary was paid by the state, Thus, the results were an underestimate of the and a $200,000 Human Services Fund to pay total health damages in the community. The some of the residents’ medical expenses. But, study was completed in February, 1979. residents did not want concessions. They wanted and needed to be evacuated as the first 239 families were. Study Area Community Health Studies

With the help of a dedicated volunteer scientist, LCHA began to interview families. Once the data was collected, they plotted the results on a map and immediately noticed a clustering of diseases in certain areas of the neighborhood. Elderly residents suggested that the clusters seemed to follow the path of old stream beds that had crossed the canal many years ago. LCHA looked at old aerial photographs, geological survey maps and personal photographs that residents brought forth. One of these photographs showed an old stream bed which appeared to be 10-feet deep and more than 20-feet wide. These stream beds crossed the canal carrying water to and from the Niagara River. When the area was developed, the stream beds were filled with dirt and building rubble through which water flowed easily. Even though there was no surface evidence of these stream beds, they provided an easy pathway for chemicals to flow out of the canal.

The scientist who helped the residents with their health study was Dr. Beverly Paigen, a cancer research scientist at Roswell Memorial Institute in Buffalo, New York. The data was collected by interviewing each family using a questionnaire. More than 75% of the homes outside the fenced area were included in the study. The 239 families who lived closest to the canal were not included because they were already evacuated.

6 Love Canal

Findings Map 1 The LCHA’s study found increases in miscarriages, still births, crib deaths, nervous breakdowns, hyperactivity, epilepsy, and urinary tract disorders. Each of these disorders were plotted on a map using dots to represent each case. Many of the dots clustered around the old stream beds or “historically wet” areas. On the following maps, homes and streets have been removed so that no family would be identified. The “wiggly” lines are the underground streambeds and the closed shapes are the ponds or wet areas.

Miscarriages & Crib Deaths

The first map (Map 1) shows the miscarriages that occured at Love Canal. Each black dot represents one miscarriage. As can be seen, the families located in the ponded area had mul- tiple miscarriages. Also, the majority of these miscarriages occurred on or near a “wet” area.

When the observed miscarriages were compared to the number of miscarriages that occurred in the same women before they moved to the Love Canal, miscarriages were found to have increased 300%. Most of these miscarriages occurred in women who lived in the historically wet areas.

LCHA also examined the pregnancies that occurred between January 1979 and February 1980, the construction period. This study found that out of 22 pregnancies occurring among Love Canal women, only four normal babies were born. The rest of the pregnancies ended in a miscarriage, stillbirth or a birth- defected child.

7 Center for Health, Environment and Justice

MISCARRIAGES AND CRIB DEATHS

Pregnancies Miscarriages Percentage Before moving to Love Canal 714 61 8.5% After moving to Love Canal 155 39 25.2%

Relative Risk = 3.0

Birth Defects Map 2

The LCHA also investigated the number of birth defects in the Love Canal community. Map 2 shows the homes where birth defects were found.

When comparing the number of birth defects in historically wet areas with homes outside these areas, there were almost three times as many birth defects.

Importantly, no birth defects were found in homes located on the stream bed that did not cross the canal. The study also showed that during the 5-year period from 1974 to 1978, 56% of the children in the Love Canal neighborhood were born with a birth defect (9 birth defects among 16 children born) that included three ears, double row of teeth, and mental retardation.

Birth Defects in Children Born During 1974-1978 in Wet Areas

Children born 16 No. of Birth Defects 9

Percentage 56%

8 Love Canal

Nervous Breakdowns Map 3

Another condition that was increased in Love Canal residents was nervous breakdowns including suicide attempts and ad- missions to a mental hospital. The table below shows that people lving in historically wet areas were six times more likely to have nervous breakdowns as those living in dry areas.

The black dots shown on Map 3 represent either a nervous breakdown, suicide attempt, or an admission to a mental hospital. No one was included that reported only a ‘nervous condition’.

NERVOUS BREAKDOWNS

Adults Break- % Living in downs

Wet Areas 149 13 8.7 Dry Areas 226 5 2.2 (south section) Dry Areas 286 2 0.7 (north section)

Relative Risk = 6.3 wet vs. all dry areas

9 Center for Health, Environment and Justice

Kidney and Urinary Systems Many of the chemicals in Love Canal are also URINARY TRACT DISORDERS known to affect the kidneys and the urinary People Urinary % system. Map 4 and the table show an increase Tract of almost 300% in urinary tract disorders. Disorders LCHA found a great number of the canal children to have urinary tract disorders. The Living in study showed more disease on the streambeds Wet Areas 314 22 7.0 that intercepted the canal when compared to the streambed that did not cross the canal. Living in Dry Areas 826 21 2.5

Map 4 Relative Risk = 2.8

Combined Health Disorders

Map 5 shows all the diseases combined. Remember that this data represents an underestimate of the health damages at Love Canal, since it does not include the 239 families who recieved the highest exposures and who were evacuated.

LCHA presented these findings to the state health authorities who quickly dismissed the study calling it “useless housewife data,” saying residents’ illnesses were all in their heads, the birth defects were genetic, and the urinary disease the result of sexual activity (in a five-year-old boy??).

So, the community went back to the streets and explained their problems to the public in order to gain the public support needed. Thousands of people soon began to write letters and send telegrams to the Governor, to legislators and to the President of our country. Residents created so much pressure and public outcry that the health authorities were forced to investigate their claims.

10 Love Canal

On February 8, 1979, after the health department looked at the reproductive problems in the outer community, they confirmed the Map 5 homeowners’ findings and issued a second evacuation order for pregnant women and children under the age of two. This evacuation was a step in the right direction, but it was still not enough. It was not until October of 1980 that a total evacuation of the community was ordered by President Jimmy Carter. Everyone who lived at the Love Canal had the option of moving away, with the government purchasing their homes at fair market value.

It is unfortunate that everything done at Love Canal, from the health studies to evacuation, was done for political reasons. None of the decisions were based on scientific evidence. LCHA truly believes that if it had not been for the large, strong citizen organization, families would still be living at Love Canal with the health authorities saying there were no health problems.

For these same reasons, in September, 1988, portions of the Love Canal area were declared “habitable,” by the NY State Department of Health. But the state never declared that these areas were “safe.” The 239 homes closest to the canal have been demolished and the remaining homes may be sold to new families. The homes that will be reinhabited are still contaminated, still unsafe. There have been no cleanup measures taken around the homes, which were found to have several toxic chemicals in their yards. Only the creek and sewer systems were cleaned.

11 Center for Health, Environment and Justice

In the case of Love Canal, history will most likely repeat itself. The deeds contain a clause stating that if the new owners become sick, harmed, or die due to the Love Canal wastes, the city, state or federal governments will not be responsible. This clause is similar to the “Hooker Clause” in the earlier land transfer in 1950.

In conclusion, it is important to add that canal families didn’t know that they were being exposed to poisonous chemicals, nor were they aware that chemical wastes were being dumped in our rivers, soil, and air. Love Canal awoke a community to the unpleasant and unfortunate realization of how toxic wastes affect our lives, and destroy our environment. Residents at Love Canal always believed that the government would automatically protect them. They were wrong; in some cases dead wrong!

Residents learned at Love Canal that even low levels of chemical exposure have an effect on the human body, and that the government will protect you from this only when you force them to. If you think you’re safe, think again. We can count only on ourselves to safeguard our families’ health through vigilance, knowledge and collective action.

12 Love Canal

Key Dates and Events at Love Canal

April, 1978 - Niagara Gazette Newspaper reporter Michael Brown writes a series on hazardous waste problems in Niagara Falls, NY including the Love Canal dumpsite.

April, 1978 - Residents of area, become concerned about health risks from Love Canal after reading Brown’s articles and called local and state health authorities for answers.

April 25, 1978 - New York State Health Commissioner, confirms that a public health hazard exists in the Love Canal community. Commissioner orders the Niagara County Health Department to remove exposed chemicals from the site and install a fence around the area.

April, 1978 - Lois Gibbs, resident and mother of two children, begins to canvass the neighborhood with a petition to close the 99th Street School located near the center of the dumpsite. Gibbs’ five year old son attended kindergarten in that school.

May 19, 1978 - New York State Health Department meets with residents for the first time to explain potential hazards of exposure to toxic chemicals in and around homes.

August 2, 1978 - A small group of residents drives to Albany, NY to present their petition to close the 99th Street School to the NYS Health Department.

August 2, 1978 - The New York State Commissioner of Health declares a State of Emergency at Love Canal and orders the 99th Street School closed and a clean up plan to be undertaken immediately. He also recommends that pregnant women and children under two who live in the area immediately surrounding the Love Canal landfill should move.

August 7, 1978 - The President of the United States declares the Love Canal neighborhood an emergency and provides funds to permanently relocate the 239 families who live in the first two rows of homes that encircled the landfill site. Families that lived in the remaining 10-block area, including Lois Gibbs’ family, were told they were not at risk.

February 8, 1979 - A second evacuation order was issued by the New York State Department of Health. This order recommended that pregnant women and children under the age of two who lived in the 10 block area outside the first evacuation zone of 239 homes should leave. In this case, once the child turned two years of age or the pregnancy terminated, the family was to move back into the contaminated neighborhood.

September 8, 1979 - 300 additional families who lived within the 10 block neighborhood were temporarily relocated as a result of health problems caused by chemical exposures from the clean up activities.

May 17, 1980 - Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announces the result of blood tests that showed chromosome damage in Love Canal residents. Residents were told that this meant they were at increased risk of cancer, reproductive problems and genetic damage.

13 Center for Health, Environment and Justice

May 19, 1980 - Love Canal residents, frightened by the news of chromosome damage and angered by the lack of government action to relocate their families from the serious public health risks of living near Love Canal, “detained” (held hostage) two Environmental Protection Agency representatives. Love Canal families challenged the White House to relocate all families by Wednesday (May 21st) at noon or “What we’ve done here today, will look like a Sesame Street picnic compared to what we’ll do then,” said Lois Gibbs, President of the Love Canal Homeowners Association.

May 21, 1980 - White House agrees to evacuate all Love Canal families temporarily until permanent relocation funds could be secured.

October 1, 1980 - President Carter visits Niagara Falls signs the appropriation bill that provided the funding for permanent relocation for all 900 families who wished to leave.

December 20, 1983 - Lawsuit filed by 1328 Love Canal residents was settled for just under $20 million dollars with Occidental Chemical Corporation, a subsidiary of Occidental Petroleum. One million dollars was set aside for a Medical Trust Fund.

September 1988 - New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH) completes a five year Habitability Study and concludes that portions of the Love Canal neighborhood were “as habitable as other areas of Niagara Falls.” NYSDOH refused to declare these areas safe.

September 15, 1989 - People from across the country joins former Love Canal residents in Albany, New York at the capitol, to protest the decision to move new families back into the Canal.

January 19, 1990 - Lois Gibbs and others meet with E.P.A. Administrator William Reilly in an attempt to block the resettlement of the northern portion of Love Canal.

April 1, 1990 - Community leaders from across the state and nation came together with the one-time residents of Love Canal and held a major rally in Niagara Falls to protest the resettlement.

August 15, 1990 - Love Canal Revitalization Agency renames a portion of Love Canal, Black Creek Village, and announces that 9 homes were available for sale to the general public.

November 28, 1990 - The first new family moves into Love Canal, but further efforts to sell homes moved slowly. Regional banks were unwilling to accept mortgages for Love Canal homes.

April, 1992 - Federal Housing Administration agrees to provide mortgage insurance to families who wished to purchase Love Canal homes.

September, 1992 - the 93rd Street School building was demolished.

14 Love Canal

June 22, 1994 - Occidental Petroleum agrees to pay $98 million to cover New York State’s cleanup costs.

January 5, 1995 - Occidental Chemical, a subsidiary of Occidental Petroleum, takes over full operations and maintenance of the chemical waste treatment plant at Love Canal.

December 22, 1995 - Occidental Petroleum agrees to pay $129 million to cover the federal government’s cleanup costs at Love Canal.

August, 1997 - The New York State Department of Health, was awarded a $3 million federal grant to conduct a follow-up health study of the families who lived near Love Canal before 1979.

July 24, 1998-- Congressman John J. LaFalce (D-Tn. of Tonawanda) announces that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has agreed to request the City of Niagara Falls that the agency demolish the 63 remaining homes in the portion of the Love Canal Emergency Declaration Area (EDA) deemed unsuitable for residential use.

August, 1998 - A playground was built on the southern section (not habitable) section area of the neighborhood.

15 Center for Health, Environment and Justice

16 Love Canal

LOIS MARIE GIBBS

In the spring of In 1981, now a single parent, with two 1978, a 27 year-old children and $10,000, Lois left Niagara housewife named Falls for the Washington, DC area to Lois Gibbs establish a national organization to help discovered that her families living near other Love Canal-like child was attending sites. Many doubted her ambitious goal to an elementary guild a movement – even her mother told school built on top her as she drove away “you’re forgetting of a 20,000 ton you’re just a house wife with a high school toxic-chemical dump in Niagara Falls, education”. Lois knew she was no longer New York. Out of desperation, she the innocent housewife of the past – but organized her neighbors into the Love had become a sophisticated advocate of Canal Homeowners Association and human rights and justice. struggled more than 2 years for relocation. Opposing the group’s efforts, though, were In 1981, Lois created the Center for the chemical manufacturer, Occidental Health, Environment and Justice, (CHEJ) Petroleum, local, state and federal (formerly Citizens Clearinghouse For government officials who insisted that the Hazardous Wastes), an organization that leaking toxic chemicals, including dioxin, has assisted over 8,000 grassroots groups the most toxic chemical known to man, with organizing, technical, and general was not the cause of high rates of birth information nationwide. defects, miscarriages, cancers and other health problems. Finally, in October 1980, Today, Lois serves as Executive Director President Jimmy Carter delivered an of CHEJ and speaks with communities Emergency Declaration, which moved 900 nationwide and internationally about families from this hazardous area and dioxin and hazardous waste pollution. As signified the major victory for the the author of Love Canal The Story grassroots environmental movement. Continues, published in 1998, Lois brings the Love Canal story up to date and Once families were relocated from Love discusses the issues society faces today Canal, Lois’s life was changed forever. with chemical exposures. Lois along with During the crisis, she received numerous a network of grassroots groups have calls from people across the country initiated the Stop Dioxin Exposure whowere experiencing similar problems. Campaign and published Dying from This revealed to her that the problem of Dioxin in 1995, to support local groups toxic waste went far beyond her own with the goal of eliminating the sources of backyard. She became determined to dioxin exposure, a chemical she feared support these grassroots efforts. most at Love Canal.

17 Center for Health, Environment and Justice

Lois has been recognized extensively for her critical role in the grassroots environmental justice movement. She has spoken at numerous conferences and has been featured in hundreds of newspaper articles, magazine, and textbooks. Lois has appeared on many television and radio shows including 60 Minutes, 20/20, Oprah Winfrey, Good Morning America, The Morning Show and the Today Show. CBS produced a 2 hour prime-time movie about Lois’s life entitled “Lois Gibbs: The Love Canal Story” staring Marsha Mason.

Among the many awards she has received include the 1990 Goldman Environmental Prize, Outside Magazine’s “Top Ten Who Made A Difference Honor Roll,” in 1991, the 1998 Heinz Award, and the 1999 John Gardner Leadership Award from the Independent Sector. She has received an honorary Ph.D. from the State University of New York (SUNY), Cortland College. She also sits on numerous Boards and Advisory Committees. She lives in Virginia with her husband and 4 children.

18 Love Canal Formation of Center For Health, Environment and Justice

Since Love Canal, Ms. Gibbs founded the Center for Health, Environment and Justice (CHEJ) (formerly the Citizens Clearinghouse for Hazardous Waste - CCHW) in 1981 to empower local groups to protect their communities from public health threats posed by environmental contamination. She started CHEJ because she was contacted by hundreds of people seeking help with their hazardous waste problems. As Director, she has traveled extensively across the country working with citizens and she quickly found that, although Love Canal is the most famous, it is not the only serious problem. In fact, chemical wastes and emissions continue to this day, to threaten thousands of communities across the country.

Over the past twenty years, CHEJ has assisted more than ten thousand community-based groups by providing them with technical information about the problems confronting them and helping them to strentghen their organizing and leadership skills. We are particularly committed to empowering groups faced with environmental injustice, who do not have the political, financial or social power to protect their communities.

CHEJ also coordinates nationwide, issue-focused campaigns around eliminating dioxin exposure and environmental health threats to children. These campaigns derive their influence at the national level from the local victories achieved by our grassroots partners. As our network becomes broader and stronger, it is winning the power to hold industry and government accountable for protecting public health.

19 The Risks of Birth Defects: Living Near Toxic Waste Sites

After fourteen years, the New York State There were 9,313 infants studied with birth Department of Health (DOH) has come defects such as cleft lip and palate, chromo- around to the high level thinking of the somal anomalies and digestive, muscular residents of Love Canal. A new study and nervous system abnormalities. A com- published in the American Journal of Epi- parison group of 18,802 normal births was demiology confirms what Lois Gibbs and selected from the same registry and others fighting the dangers of the Love matched with the “exposed” group. Canal and other dump sites were saying The authors then looked at 590 inactive long ago: It’s dangerous to live near toxic hazardous waste sites in 20 upstate New waste sites! York counties. These sites were ranked by This study, conducted by DOH and re- the state DOH according to their “potential searchers at Yale University, found that for human exposure to toxic substances” the closer you live to a contaminated site, using EPA’s hazard ranking system. This the greater the risk is of having a child with system focuses mostly on existing evidence a birth defect. This is not just gut instinct of contamination. The communities were or observation of the obvious, this is a further broken into three groups—those rigorous, hard, scientific conclusion that with high, medium or low exposure. The shows a “statistically significant” differ- high exposure communities were those ence between the rate of birth defects in a within one mile of a site where there was control group compared to those living near documented evidence of contamination. dump sites. What’s remarkable about this study is that The researchers found that mothers living the authors did everything they could to less than one mile from a contaminated site look at the data in ways that would reduce had a 12 percent higher risk of giving birth the likelihood that they would find any- to a child with a birth defect when com- thing. They bent over backwards trying to pared to mothers who lived more than one dismiss the results and trying to show that mile from a site. Rates were highest for there was no problem. They eliminated defects of the central nervous system (CNS), certain types of birth defects; they looked the musculoskeletal system and the skin. If only at defects that were “likely to be asso- you look at those sites “with the greatest ciated with wastes sites;” and they did not potential for exposure,” the rate of birth include data on spontaneous abortions and defects was 63 percent higher than for fetal deaths. nonexposed controls. For CNS defects, the The researchers concluded that the study rate was 48 percent higher; for the muscu- “does suggest a small positive association loskeletal system, the rate was 75 percent between proximity to hazardous waste sites higher and for the integument system (skin), and birth defects” but they qualify their the rate was 163 percent higher. conclusion by stating that the study has The authors looked at the records of more certain limitations. Their biggest concern than 27,000 births throughout New York was that no one can be sure that the moth- state for the years 1983 and 1984. They ers were actually exposed to chemicals from categorized the births according to address the waste sites and therefore that the birth and the type of birth defect. The data came defects were the result of exposure to chemi- from the New York State Department of cals leaking from these sites. Health Congenital Malformation Registry.

20 Does this sound familiar? Once again gov- find health effects. The evidence is growing ernment is trying to excuse what they found each day. The heart defects in children and protect industry by carefully wording born to mothers exposed to trichloroethyl- what they say. Why is the health depart- ene (TCE) in drinking water in Tucson, ment for the state of New York more wor- Arizona; the increased miscarriages and ried about whether they say anything that birth defects in San Jose, California; and would hurt private business than they are the leukemic children born in Woburn, Mas- in protecting the public’s health? I think sachusetts, are just a few of the health the answer lies in the influence big busi- problems found in communities near con- ness has not only on government but also taminated sites. on the politicians who dictate the priorities These problems are real. Exposure to toxic of government. chemicals does cause adverse health ef- Despite these cautions and efforts to mini- fects. We have to stop listening to industry mize the results, the study still found a 12 and government who tell us these problems percent increase in all birth defects for are not real and who negate the evidence those who lived less than one mile from any that chemicals cause health effects. Their dump site and a 63 percent increase for agenda is to stall for time and to avoid those who lived less than one mile from the accountability for their actions. worst sites. Had the authors been more lenient in choosing data to include, had The truth is the more we look, the more we they included information on miscarriages find. If we wait until we are absolutely sure and stillbirths and had they not catego- that chemical X caused health problem Y, rized data in ways that leaned towards then it surely will be too late. We cannot dismissing the results, the effects would be afford to wait until the bodies are in the even more striking. street. We need to act now, to hold industry accountable for the pollution they create The positive side of this approach is that and to make government more responsive the results are stronger, more convincing, to the needs of the people. and less subject to challenge. No one can say that the authors were biased or that they used inappropriate methods to get a References positive finding. But, this also means that “Risk of Congenital Malformations Associ- the true effects might be even higher. ated with Proximity to Hazardous Waste This study was published in late July of this Sites,” Sandra Geschwind, Jan Stolwijk, year and we expect that industry will soon Michael Bracken, Ed Fitzgerald, Alice mount it’s challenges of this study. They Stark, Carolyn Olsen and James Melius, have too much invested in the argument American Journal of Epidemiology, Vol. that there is no evidence of health damage 135, No. 11, pp. 1197-1207, August 1992. to people living near dump sites to let this “Public Health Aspects of Toxic Chemical go. Disposal Sites,” Arthur Upton, Ted Kneip and Paolo Toniolo, Annual Review of Public But no matter what industry or other crit- Health, Vol. 10, pp. 1-25, 1989. ics say, they cannot take away the fact that every time a good, solid, study is done to “Health Effects from Toxic Chemicals— evaluate health problems in a community Fact or Fiction,” Stephen Lester, Everyone’s affected by toxic chemicals, researchers do Backyard, Vol. 6, No. 2, Summer 1988.